Usability - Interviews with Experts

Burmester: People have to start coming to the realization that technology has to be designed with the needs and wishes of users in mind, and not the other way around. The leading American usability researcher, Donald Norman, really got the attention of a group of engineers when he told them during an address that in the future they won't be the ones who define technology – that it will more likely be defined by social scientists. That's the right direction. After all, today's primary concern is not to sort out what is technically feasible. Instead, the focus is on figuring out what technology users need and how they can best handle it. It's wrong to develop something and then start asking what you can do with it. When product managers shape their products the way they think users would like them to be, bias creeps in. If the image of the user is off-base, the newly created products won't suit the needs of the target group. The products have to be adapted to humans, and not the other way around.

Burmester: As an information designer, I've seen considerable improvements in software. A huge stride was taken about 20 years ago with the transition from alphanumeric representations to graphic surfaces, and this improvement could be measured objectively. Users made fewer mistakes and could work more efficiently.

Burmester: One of today's biggest trends is the transfer of computer intelligence into more and more products. Computers are now everywhere, networking is increasing – in cars, at home, at work and in leisure activities. And the need for usability is growing along with the complexity of technologies. Usability researchers are wondering whether technology could offer something more, like enjoyment or fun.

Burmester: Not necessarily. Ten years ago, the dominant issue was the user's ability to get a good handle on the equipment and do things like operate a video recorder better. As far as research goes, we have this issue behind us. But that is not the case for practical applications. Today, usability researchers are asking themselves how the joy of use can be systematically enhanced and lead to products that will excite and captivate customers – products that they like to work with. The emotional aspect is playing a bigger and bigger role.

Is that a controversial issue among usability experts

Burmester: Yes. The opponents of this way of thinking are calling for rational thinking and no emotions – at least when it comes to software. I can understand such thinking when you're talking about running a power plant or flying an airplane. But this rejection is being applied to all products, and I don't think that's right.

Still, isn't there a risk of alienating users if designers carry emotion too far? Pop up figures, for instance, can be distracting.

Burmester: On this issue, I'm really cautious. During our joy-of-use research, we learned that it's possible to do the absolutely wrong thing. Comic figures that pop up on the screen are considered to be totally out of place when serious work is being done. They make users feel that their work is being trivialized.

Then how do you design products that are fun to use?

Burmester: That's something we still don't know today. All over the world, there are researchers devoted to creating fun. They are hunting for systematic approaches that could be applied to products.

For example?

Burmester: There's a birdhouse that uses the learning principles drawn from behavior research to teach birds how to sing the birdhouse owner's favorite song. Such a product doesn't really have any purpose. It's just a lot of fun because it allows the user to have an effect on his or her surroundings. Another example is a study conducted by the Philips company in cooperation with the Technical University of Delft. It developed a pager with the special feature of "sensuality" for young women. Siemens' Xelibri designer cell phones are also heading in that direction.

When it comes to the interaction between humans and technology, many people are focusing on avatars that simulate a human contact person.

Burmester: You really have to think hard to determine which fields of application are appropriate for something like this. One thing is certain. The trend is moving in the direction of making communications between humans and machines more natural – through language, through gestures and through the computer's ability to recognize facial expressions in order to properly understand things like ironic comments.

What are some other applications?

Burmester: Devices or software could be designed in such a way that they would build on everything that humans can already do – things like interactive knowledge that the user has already gained with other devices. There are also metaphors that structure information. Take a book, for instance. It's made up of a table of contents and chapters. If I want to convey information by using the metaphor of a book, I can draw on a lot of knowledge that the user already has.

When it comes to global marketing, what kinds of usability problems are developers facing?

Burmester: When I design with the user in mind and pay attention to the user context, then the user's culture naturally flows into the process. A cell phone for Germany should ring softly because people don't want to attract attention. In China, on the other hand, it can ring loudly because people want others to know they own a cell phone. Product developers should know target markets and respond creatively to cultural differences. For example, they could make products with interchangeable modules that would alter their characteristics depending on the markets in which they were used.

What about the usability of products for certain target groups, such as the elderly?

Burmester: The EU's recently released Senior Watch study determined that information technology products don't address the needs of older people.

Did that surprise you?

Burmester: No, it didn't. The requirements of this target group in terms of information, functions and operation are disregarded when many devices and applications are designed. In the area of operation, designers need to address people's changing cognitive abilities. We know, for instance, that as people age they tend to become more careful and methodical.

What does that mean for usability?

Burmester: Older people have to be given a feeling of security when they operate a device. Some interactions simply work better when they guide the user step by step. That, by the way, is often also a very good strategy for younger target groups. The result of such an approach is that designers who keep the needs of older people in mind are creating products that are suited to all age groups. The major flops are the products that were specially made for seniors. After all, who thinks of himself or herself as being old? So-called design for all grows out of this experience. Unfortunately, we have not arrived there in practice, even though we know how to improve the situation

Wouldn't you be making yourself obsolete if all of your demands were actually put into practice?

Burmester: We've also asked ourselves this question. The answer is a definite "no." Technology is undergoing constant change. In addition, usability is increasing. More and more, the design of interactions between humans and technology is being driven by individual human characteristics, wishes and behavior patterns. User-interface researcher Ben Shneiderman of the University of Maryland got it right when he said, "The old computing was about what computers could do; the new computing is about what users can do." If we keep that in mind, we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

Interview by Rolf Sterbak